Trusts and Estates
Grossman v. Wakeman
Cite as B329459
Filed September 4, 2024
Second District, Div. Six
By Michelle Barnett Batista
Aaron, Riechert, Carpol & Riffle, APC
www.arcr.com
Headnote: Legal Malpractice – Duty of Care to Nonclients
Summary: Estate planning attorney did not owe duty of care to client’s heirs because client’s intent to benefit heirs in the estate plan was not clear, certain, and undisputed.
In 2011, Richard met with his attorney, John, regarding changes to his estate plan. Richard instructed John that he wanted to leave his entire estate to his fourth wife, Elizabeth, and nothing to his son and grandchildren “because Elizabeth will make sure they’re taken care of.” Richard subsequently executed a trust restatement, prepared by John, leaving his entire estate to Elizabeth. Following Richard’s death, Richard’s son and grandchildren sued John and his law firm (“Attorneys”) for legal malpractice. The jury returned a special verdict finding that Richard’s son and grandchildren were the intended beneficiaries of Richard’s estate plan and awarded damages totaling $9.5 million. Attorneys appealed.
The appellate court reversed. A nonclient third party can maintain a malpractice action only if there is clear, certain, and undisputed evidence of the client’s intent to benefit the nonclient third party. Because the evidence of Richard’s alleged intent to leave his estate to his son and grandchildren was not “clear, certain, and undisputed,” the evidence was insufficient to show that Attorneys owed a duty of care to Richard’s son and grandchildren in preparing the estate planning documents. The imposition of malpractice liability in these circumstances would not only be unjust, it would also place an intolerable burden on the legal profession.